The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-12

proceeded witt tho business of the session
ly. If this court whether acting unanimously Or
through majority of its members only, had at the
former nearing assumed to decide, notwithstanding
our announced want of jurisdiction over the question
in accordance with the opinongiven bv the Attorney
general decision would have afforded fine senate
no reason for changing the line of policy
which it had adopted and have no assurance that
under the circumstances any such change of policy
would have resulted. On the contrary IF acting AZ
above we had assumed to decide that the alleged elec
ton of the appellant invalid our decision vouid
from the rs ene o. which
elected Lieutenant governor Such decision wouid
doubtless have been treated by that body as am intru
sion upon ITS exclusive authority coordinate
branch OF the General Assembly Thus whatever
opinion we of the majority might have announced
would III the very nature OF the controversy have be-
come new cause of evaporation between the two
houses. and would have tended to crystalline moro
firmly the disorganzaion which already existed be-
tween them.
1t was, as it seems to me, unreasonable to EXPECT
that, in a most exciting political crisis like that
through which the General Assembly has Just passed
and in relation to most important and mementarily
oyershadowing question the opinion of an Attorney
general the voluntary extrajudcia and merely in
divdual views of any judge set of judges, would
have been accepted nalty by those representing
adverse interests or holding radically different views
Then too the prom d CATION of any majority opin-
ion upon the merits would have noedlessly connected
this court with exciting and bitter political contro
versy which it had power TO control OF to
mitigate in the smallest degree. Those of who
think we have power to pass upon the appellants
title ought certainly not to have been expected to go
out of our way to give it moral support on the one
side or to merely besmirch it on the other.
AS TO those of number who believe the courts Of
the State have jurisdiction the subject matter Of
this proceeding, there was evident propriety Ia
their expressing their views on the merits of the
test for the information of those most interested
well for that of the inferior COURTS but for those OF
us who maintain entire want of jurisdiction COM
consistency enjoned discreet and respectful ST.
lence upon the merits. 1t would certainly not be
consistent for this court to first hold that jurisdiction
of cause inadvertently before it. belonged exclusive
ly to the Supreme Court of the United States. and
then ithstanding to proceed TO decide it upon
its merits. Such decision would settle nothing and
hence do practical good and might misead and do
positive harm. When therefore to speak may mis-
lead. silence ought to be carefully observed In my
view, there is nothing proclaim, either to
the official official status of the appellant which
the General Assembly may not at any time, when IN
session overrule and when should be overruled
it would be duty to acquiesce, however damaging
it might be to consistency, or to authority
a court.
If an act of the present General Assembly whether
passed at the regular some ecial session, shall
before signed by the appellant, behalf OF
the Senate and otherwise duly certified and approved
it will be duty to that the appellant was
at the time he affixed his signature the acting and
qualified Lieutenant governor of the State and that
he had been recognized by the two houses of the
| General Assembly.
On the other hand when an act of the current Gen.
eral Assembly shall come before u.s. signed by the
lator Smith or some other person as President pro
tempore of the Senate will be required to
that the person signing was elected to preside
| the Senate at time and under circumstances which
authorized his election. So that the Senate settles
for u.s. and for it. who for any OCCASION is its
| proper presiding officer. The Constitution plainly
contemplates of action between the two
houses in all matters which pertain to the organzar
ton of each we'll in those things which require
the joint action of both but when the two bodies fail
to concur each must necessarily determine for itself
everything that relates to its organization. No
means provided by scheme of State govern
ment by which unity of action between the two houses
| can be constrained either house coerced to act
against its will There is appeal from what either
| house may do, except to the people. through the
medium of the ballot box. The executive department.
may aid in preserving the public peace but nothing
more.
1t is due to frankness to state that believing
have from the first that the of the State have
positively nothing to do with the validity invadity
of the appellants title, have examined the
questions made concerning it with that which
would enable me to promulgate opinion the
subject worthy of the occasion by which / might
hereafter be willing to be bound in the light Of future
events have far refraned, and I expect to con.
tnue to refrain, from the formal expression of any
opinion in that respect which might be urged against
or brought in conflict with any action which the Gen
eral Assembly may have taken may hereafter take
in regard to the appellants claim to official recogni-
ton. AS a citizen and member of coordinate
| branch of the State government, I stand ready to
acquiesce in whatever action, any that body shall
any time take the subject. If the disorganiza
ton which has far existed shall continue to the end
then only regret what /. in common with others
| similarly situated, have power to relieve b.a.